Global News: Handling Vaccine Disagreements - Featuring Alyssa Bach, Shulman & Partners LLP

As Ontario schools began asking students to disclose vaccine status and vaccine passports expanded, many separated and divorced parents found themselves facing new co-parenting conflict. In a Global News interview, Alyssa Bach, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP, discussed what parents can do when they fundamentally disagree about vaccinating their children, and how disclosure decisions should be approached. She explained that these disputes can feel especially polarizing because there is rarely a compromise position, and the legal analysis often returns to the same core question: what is in the best interests of the child. The conversation also explored how public health guidance, school requirements, and children’s ages can affect decision making in Ontario family law.

“We are starting to see case law coming through where the courts are looking at it and saying that they’re essentially diverting to what the government and public health are recommending.”
— Alyssa Bach, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP

In the interview, Alyssa addressed the anxiety many divorced parents were experiencing as vaccination decisions became part of everyday school and activity planning. She noted that when parents are divided on whether a child should be vaccinated, the first step is often less legal and more practical: try to understand where the other parent is coming from. Alyssa explained that the reasons behind a parent’s position matter, including whether there are specific health concerns or other underlying issues driving hesitation or support.

Alyssa emphasized that vaccination disagreements are uniquely difficult because they tend to be polarizing. If one parent is firmly in favour and the other is firmly opposed, there is often no real middle ground. In those situations, she explained that courts will focus on the best interests of the child. She also noted that emerging case law has shown courts generally deferring to government and public health recommendations, meaning that if the broader guidance supports vaccination, the court is likely to align with that unless there is a compelling reason not to.

She also flagged a practical consideration for families thinking about litigation. Alyssa cautioned parents to keep the time and expense of a lengthy court battle in mind before escalating the dispute, especially where the likely outcome may track public health guidance.

The conversation also turned to disclosure, as some Ontario schools began asking students to disclose vaccination status. Alyssa explained that parents should look at who has decision making responsibility for the child. In some families, decisions must be made jointly, while in others one parent may have the authority to make certain decisions. She suggested that parents also consider whether the school’s request is mandatory or a recommendation, and what the real-life impact on the child would be. If disclosure affects whether a child can attend school in person, the best interests analysis becomes especially central.

Finally, Alyssa discussed how vaccine passports created additional parenting challenges as seasons changed. With more activities moving indoors and some venues requiring proof of vaccination, parents faced barriers to everyday outings such as movies or indoor sports. She explained that this shift led to more questions from parents about how to move forward so children could participate fully as colder weather arrived.

Looking ahead to younger children, Alyssa explained that Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act allows a person to consent to treatment if they can provide informed consent. She noted that informed consent may be easier with older children, while for younger children it often becomes more of a parent-to-parent decision.